IMO 'monks' should be controllers. What would Mister 'wax on wax off' Miyagi say if you'dd say that martial artist are strikers? no no no. "karate never here" *points to fists*
So, incapacitating attackers, moving out of the way ... these are the trademakes of the master of martial arts ...
This is what I've come up so far ...
Martial artists - unlike monks - don't train their mind. They train in dojo's and such learning techniques to incapacitate your opponent. Enlightenment is not their goal. Yes, a real martial artist deems violence as a last resort - but it is a resort non the less.
Class Traits:
Role: Controller.
Power Source: Martial
Key Abilities: Strength, Dexterity
Armor Proficiencies: Cloth
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple Melee, Simple Ranged, Military melee, Military ranged
Bonus to Defense: +1 Fortitude, +1 Reflex, +1 Will
Hit Points at 1st Level: 10 + Constitution score
Hit Points per level gained: 4
Healing Surges/day: 6 + Constitution modifier.
Trained Skills: All martial artist are trained in Acrobatics or Athletics. From the list below, choose three more trained skills at 1st level:
Class Skills: Acrobatics (Dex), Athletics (Str), Diplomacy (Cha), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), History (Int), Insight (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Streetwise (cha).
Class Features:
Physical Prowess: you gain +2 AC when not wearing cloth or no or cloth armor
Secondly, let them wear Cloth armour. Otherwise, they will not get the pluses from armour that they need. Remember, Cloth is an armour type now.
Thirdly, Evasive Manoeuvre is ridiculous. If the Martial Artist is against one enemy, he will never, ever be hit by the opponent's melee attacks. As well, this is not a Controller feature. I have no idea how this is supposed to be a Controller feature.
Firstly, it is prowess, not prowness.
thx (english isn't my first language)
Secondly, let them wear Cloth armour. Otherwise, they will not get the pluses from armour that they need. Remember, Cloth is an armour type now.
yeah, I indeed forgot 'colth' is armor now.
Thirdly, Evasive Manoeuvre is ridiculous. If the Martial Artist is against one enemy, he will never, ever be hit by the opponent's melee attacks. As well, this is not a Controller feature. I have no idea how this is supposed to be a Controller feature.
Indeed it looks rediculous, but hear me out.
Versus a single enemy, a wizard will also not be hit (standing way back, having a defender ... in front of him). Yes a solo will probably be able to hit the wizard, but a solo will also hit the martial artist (using a action point or area effect, or burst (as shown in the dragonborn example). And having hit points like a wizard, a solo targeting the martial artist won't be standing very long ...
The ability itself emulates ranged powers. a wizard can cast + move to a optimal position. a mellee character is stuck with 'move to target and attack'.
edit: note the vunrability against multiple opponents: the martial artist moves away from his focus, but is left open to get ganged up the other monsters.
That was the idea behind it. Did I mess up?
edit2: I really hope it's balanced: its always fun to make an ability that's "WOW, so strong", yet balanced
Oh, and now that I see your language, I feel a bit more lenient with the grammar, sorry.
Caution, long
This is the right place.
Miyagi has no idea what Strikers are. Anyway, I'd say that yes, martial artists ARE strikers; they target one person at a time.
Don't all classes do that? The fighter does. Ranger, Swordmage, Druid, every class incapacitates foes. It's called the 0-HP mark.
Class traits. Class traits. I can't remember the last time WotC used the word "stuff" in a 4E D&D book. Also, capitalize and grammar-check this post.
+4, not 5. You might want to give them Striker-style HP, like the Druid.
So, they walk around the battlefield in their underwear? Cloth is an armor type.
Monks use Monk Unarmed Strike as a weapon. Also, there are no Martial weapons in 4E. There are:
Simple Melee
Simple Ranged
Military melee
Military ranged
Superior Melee
Superior Ranged
Yeah, they walk around the battlefield in their underwear.
From the controller thread ... (hoping to get some more input ...)
This is the right place.
IMO 'monks' should be controllers. What would Mister 'wax on wax off' Miyagi say if you'dd say that martial artist are strikers? no no no. "karate never here" *points to fists*
Miyagi has no idea what Strikers are. Anyway, I'd say that yes, martial artists ARE strikers; they target one person at a time.
So, incapacitating attackers, moving out of the way ... these are the trademakes of the master of martial arts ...
Don't all classes do that? The fighter does. Ranger, Swordmage, Druid, every class incapacitates foes. It's called the 0-HP mark.
This is what I've come up so far ...
general stuff:
Class traits. Class traits. I can't remember the last time WotC used the word "stuff" in a 4E D&D book. Also, capitalize and grammar-check this post.- hp: 10 + consitution at first level; +5 hp every level
+4, not 5. You might want to give them Striker-style HP, like the Druid.
- healing surges: 7 + constitution modifier
- armor proficiency: non (Ref. class feature Physical Prowness)
So, they walk around the battlefield in their underwear? Cloth is an armor type.
- weapon proficiency: all simple and martial, though monks usually use unarmed stikes (+0 proficiency)
Monks use Monk Unarmed Strike as a weapon. Also, there are no Martial weapons in 4E. There are:
Simple Melee
Simple Ranged
Military melee
Military ranged
Superior Melee
Superior Ranged
Class features:
Physical Prowness: you gain +2 AC when not wearing any armor
Yeah, they walk around the battlefield in their underwear.
Oh, and now that I see your language, I feel a bit more lenient with the grammar, sorry.
no problem. any comments on what I've written wrong are welcome (it improves my english)
Miyagi has no idea what Strikers are. Anyway, I'd say that yes, martial artists ARE strikers; they target one person at a time.
yes, but a striker's job is to kill. the target.
Don't all classes do that? The fighter does. Ranger, Swordmage, Druid, every class incapacitates foes. It's called the 0-HP mark.
I think there's a slight difference between a lock or throw and a wack on the head
grammer check says +70% of the words are wrong (Dutch, you see) I'll capitalize when I have more time (it's 30 minutes past bed time already here ...)
+4, not 5. You might want to give them Striker-style HP, like the Druid.
actually wizard hp is what I wanted.
Monks use Monk Unarmed Strike as a weapon. Also, there are no Martial weapons in 4E. There are:
will fix
Err, why Dragonborn? Just say "Medium creature." All medium creatures have reach 1.
dragonborn have a blast 3 breath weapon. a monk can't get out of the area if the dragonborn centrilizes his breathweapon on the monk
Wouldn't you slide the creature 1 square in a throw
the basic of every throw (be it hip toss, shoulder toss, ...) is to land the enemy prone, not to move them.
Also, this could kill the Tarrasque in one (well, mebbey that's an exaggeration) round if used at high levels. Take Rangers, who can do it in, like, two, with their Twin Strike. It's probably the most damaging at-will in the game
no steal: this is a +0 vs NAD attack ;) . actually, the d4 does make a huge difference.
Twin strike has 25% no hit, 50% 1 hit, 25% both hit, for an average damage (using +6 axes) of 11.5 (not caclulating crits)
Flurry of blows has 12.5% no hit 37.5% one hit, 37.5% two hits 12.5% three hits for (assuming a +6 enchantment) for 12.75
- hmmm you're correct. this power does too much damage. I'll change it to damage equal to the strength modifier ... (dropping its effeciency, as the power now require str and dex, and doesn't receive an enchantment bonus to damage)
Err, this could kill a lot of minions.
its a watered down version of thunderclap (IIRC) 3 on 3 area against a adjecent enemy and an enemy up to 2 squares away (a.k.a. within the same blast)Where did DEX come into the class? Also, at high levels, the damage from this would be almost as good as that from a normal attack...
Even then, this power is too good.
note how it isn't automatic damage: you still roll need an attack roll. However, I will take it under advicement
Check the Wizard power "Ray of Enfeeblement" to see why this is overpowered.
oops. indeed RoE does less damage of an easy resistable type. a must fix.
Also, this is the first time I noticed, but Unarmed isn't a keyword. You can add "Requirement: you must be unarmed," but that doesn't make sense based on the name.
I think it would be easier to define a new keyword: unarmed.
(I was planning on doing that once I figured out how to create the enchantment bonus items (inventing a new item, ...))
You DO know how stances are worded and used, don't you?
? yes ...
(doublechecking ... the only problem I see is that stances don't talk about the end of encounter ... - which is obvious as a stance stops having effect if the stance is stopped)
Where does the ongoing damage come from? Your horns or something? Also, this attack does hordes of damage. This class is far from a controller.
ongoing damage: have you ever tried to move with bruses, or a broken leg? (IIRC thats how ongoing damage is explained for fighter powers). Abo uthe "does hordes of damage" ... acid arrow (daily wizard 1) disagrees with you. although indeed this power lacks 'spash'
However, how far do you shift? 3 feet? 3 squares? 3 elephants? 3 jelly bean jars? 3 MILES?
hoping you're sarcastic
. will fix.Also, is this supposed to be a stance? Why not use oppurtunity actions? Or, if it ISN'T a stance, why not a close burst 1?
no, no it isn't a stance. it allows you to spend the rest of your turn moving through the battlefield, selecting targets (by moving beside them). a burst 1 would only target between moves,while here its the intent to target while moving.
You DO realize that "effect" takes place on a hit OR miss, right?
yes. this power always slows. while it only deals damage on hit.
Hmmm, this one has potential.
yeah, it was a steal (from the fighter)
Err, this is an attack power not utility.
actually, the idea came from dispel magic (which is a utility that attacks). IIRC the ranger has also utility powers that attack.
Why not Slide the target
flavor. you push an ally or pull an ally.
Also, this sounds like a Rogue power. That's not a bad thing, but check the Rogue utilities to see if this is of the right level.
its an other steal: wizards 'jump' power (utility 2). I just figured jumping would be more usefull to martial artist then wizards ...
I'd consider this if you could pull the creature at all, but it has to be adjacent to you in order for you to use the power, so you can't pull it.
then it should be slide 1 to an adjecent square
Also, If you can USE THIS POWER NOT DO THIS ATTTACK oppurtunity attack, making it slow or immobilize the target would give it better controller potential.
very good point. thx. will change
Shift 3 the first time, 5 the second? what?
in case it takes more squares to shift back (enemy oppertunity actions ...)
As minor action, you may shift 1 as minor action? REDUNDANT! CALL THE POLICE!
not redundent: its a stance that takes a minor action to activate. while in the stance, you may shift 1 as minor action.
It seems a bit good.
1 word: blur. same deal, but invisible instead of +5 defenses.
Hmm, more monkeys. Check Rangers, see if there's a similar Utility of a different level, if so, you might want to change yours' level or effect, or both.
did. its a steal :embarrass
Your statement is true, but who told you that?
these points are from a generic check list intended for trolls in martial controller build thread. as positive point, it sums up general problems that martial builds have.
Also, you haven't mentioned the Wizard as an example.
I specifically haven't. many powers have come to mind with the list of wizard powers in front of me.
low kick (hit damage, effect: slow + drop if move more) and deflecting cat stance (+2 defenses, or +5 if distance is to big) for example, are emulations of a bigby's grasping spell (try and grab the enemy each turn) and blur (+2 defense, invisible if distance is to big). If you compare the lists, you might see many more example ...
if a karateka is anything like something from a Martial Arts or Anime movie, the Monk already covers it.
karateka: someone who studies karate.
One? that's it?
well, if they come near the party he'll just throw them back
1. Capitalization, Grammar, and Spelling matter to me more than good fluff or mechanics. You are lacking here.
2. Proper terminology is a close second.
3. Look at other class powers from other classes when you make your own.
4. The Monk aleady covers this class concept. This class is, flavor-wise, no different from the Monk.
5. The class does, in fact, NOT fulfill the controller role. It needs more debuffs and less multiattacking.
6. No fluff? Where'd all the flavor text go? Please try some.
7. Put this in exact 4E Format, oh please put this in the exact 4E fromat.
8. Despite all this, You have some good ideas in there for powers. Many would work well in other classes.
9. Could you come up with a more interesting class name? Please?
10. Re-read #s 1 and 2 in case you missed them.
will do.
about monks: as non D&DI-er, the monk is still a mystery for me - but from what I've heared, it wasn't received well (using ki to create poisonoius touch or something?). this class isn't a monk. it doesn't use enlightenment as a weapon. it uses enlightenment as a filosophy (why he learns martial arts - and how they are form), but uses raw physical strength as his weapon: Speed, Percision, Strength are the weapons* of a martial artist, not his mind.
*: weapons as in tools to attack people. off course it would be better to avoid fighting at all, and this should be encouraged.
Finally, my disclaimer: If this made me sound like a jerk, I'm sorry. It wasn't my intention. If it was too long or too short, I can't help ya there. You don't have to do anything I suggested. It's just my opinion.
no disclaimer needed. I (try too) value everyones oppinion.
- added explenation of Evasive Manoeuvre
- added a new keyword: style
- added a few powers, and made drastic changes a few others
Remember: If it is RED, then English is dead. If it is RID, then... umm... poor spelling is... hid...den...
Yeah, that rhyme didn't work the way I wanted it to.
Just another minor spelling correction: It is spelled ridiculous, not rediculous.
thanks. fixed
There are so many styles of martial arts in the world, and those of us that practice are always going to find a flaw in a given way that the class is made. For example, I don't think that Hung Gar would be the controller role. Striker maybe, or defender. We are taught to take down or, if need be, kill to stay safe. Wing Chun, though different in its application, would again make a poor controller. Take down one, move to the next.
Actually, I cannot think of a single style off the top of my head that would make a good controller.
I don't think that Hung Gar would be the controller role. Striker maybe, or defender. .
with a quote like "We are taught to take down or, if need be, kill to stay safe", I don't really understand how you don't think that is not a controller. Doesn't that make your main objective is to inflict status effects, and killing is only a final option. (while I'dd say killing is a strikers first priority)
Actually, I cannot think of a single style off the top of my head that would make a good controller.
Aikido? karate (Goju-ryu and Wado-ryu specifically - think karate kid) ? Judo? jiujitsu?
They would make bad strikers (as killing is only a final option) or defender (as they use counter techniques if THEY are attacked, not allies)
The hard styles focus on the mortality of the opponent. Curshing the wind pipe and such. This makes hard styles perfect for minion destruction (as they are realistically mortal). However - and I hope you agree with me - When a monster litterly needs several good hits of a sword or axe to go down ... the fact that you can crush a windpipe could be seen more as a status effect, then true damage. (reading the flavor of fighter powers, broken bones and such are in fact status effects)
with a quote like "We are taught to take down or, if need be, kill to stay safe", I don't really understand how you don't think that is not a controller. Doesn't that make your main objective is to inflict status effects, and killing is only a final option. (while I'dd say killing is a strikers first priority)
Aikido? karate (Goju-ryu and Wado-ryu specifically - think karate kid) ? Judo? jiujitsu?
They would make bad strikers (as killing is only a final option) or defender (as they use counter techniques if THEY are attacked, not allies)
Yes, but the controllers are meant to control, hence the name. They are meant to take out many smaller guys and to manipulate the battle field. Martial Arts don’t teach that. Killing is not a final option, taking some one down is the main objective in all styles. An Aikidoka isn’t going to try and manipulate the field to her advantage, she is going to take down one, move to the next. Her methods are more defense, but she isn’t a defender as recognized by 4e. She would be a striker. Albeit one with a high defense. All the Okinawate schools teach that as well, in fact Okinawate systems are more so interested in take downs than main island Japanese systems. Judo and jiujutsu are pretty much the same thing, one is a sport of the other. Jiujutsu, even then, is focused on take one down, move to the other. It is easiest and smartest to focus on one at a time, hit with enough to take him out, then move to the next.
The hard styles focus on the mortality of the opponent. Curshing the wind pipe and such. This makes hard styles perfect for minion destruction (as they are realistically mortal). However - and I hope you agree with me - When a monster litterly needs several good hits of a sword or axe to go down ... the fact that you can crush a windpipe could be seen more as a status effect, then true damage. (reading the flavor of fighter powers, broken bones and such are in fact status effects)
Hard and soft style is an illusion. And a Martial Artist would still be a striker in that instance. If she were to fight such a monster, she would still devastate it with a flurry of fist and foot, not to mention the fact that she would be proficient with a plethora of weaponry should she be facing such a monster that is immune to bludgeoning damage (which doesn’t happen any more).
You are free to make the class as you will, it is, after all, your class. I just don’t think that it really captures the proper feel for what you are making. I mean, the arguments you are using could just as easily be used on a fighter as to why it should be a controller. After all, with a large axe, one could easily take out many people around her in one wide swing. Tearing through minions would be easy when you are armoured and carrying a polearm, and so on...
Yes, but the controllers are meant to control, hence the name. They are meant to take out many smaller guys and to manipulate the battle field.
well, up to level 10 the wizard doens't do anything to manipulate the battlefield. at best he has sustainable area powers - which I try to emulate with stances.
Practically, how is an area difficult terain different then slow? Both impend movement, they just use an other mechanism (difficult terrain slows less, and can be avoided, but can possibly effect more critters; slow is stronger, but a status effect). How is diffucult terrain different from a push effect?
Practically, how is a bigby's grabbing fist ( (?) - that lvl 5 wizad daily) (a fist that each turns tries to grapple a guy) different from a broken leg (low kick: it impends movement and deals damage)
Practically, how is a Otilukes resilient sphere ( (?) - lvl 12(?) daily that requires the enemy to deal 100 damage before he's freed) to some kind of hold grip, he needs to escape from before being able to do something else? or a stun effect?
An Aikidoka isn’t going to try and manipulate the field to her advantage, she is going to take down one, move to the next
Woudn't an Aikidoka try to apply status effects first? (prone, (stun)lock, ... ) - And applying status effects, is the controllers job.
An Aikidoka isn’t going to try and manipulate the field to her advantage, she is going to take down one, move to the next
Martial arts are created from a practical point of view, no? Facing more then one opponent seems a very normal senario.
Pick a martial arts movie. 9/10 protagonist will take out a group of goons. Jacky Chan, Bruce Lee, Steven Segal, ... it translates perfectly in 'character vs minions' in DnD terms.
good ideas, powers and such.
the "infamous" monk
(i had no idea whilst creating the Gladiator that Martial controllers were popular with Homebrewers!)
(i had no idea whilst creating the Gladiator that Martial controllers were popular with Homebrewers!)
Yeah. Wildly so.
It all starts when someone looks through the Player's Handbooks and goes, "Hey, there's no martial controller." And it all starts from there and one guy gets an idea and tries to make it.
Then he gets on his favorite D&D board, posts his idea, then gets lambasted until he never posts again.
lol.